Cybervigilantism

Controversy over Wikileaks so-called Cablegate release last month led to a series of attacks and counterattacks over the Web, as Wikileaks supporters attempted to cripple the sites of organizations seen as working against the whistleblower website. Those attackers were in turn attacked themselves. Some see the attackers as political protesters; to others, they're criminals.

Things took an interesting turn in the aftermath of Cablegate, which saw 250,000 documents, many of them sensitive, put on the open Web by WikiLeaks.

Julian Assange, the founder of the site, has been charged by Swedish police with a sex crime; the U.S. government is seeking to try Assange, who's currently out on bail; hundreds of mirrored WikiLeaks sites have sprung up around the world; WikiLeaks supporters have launched DDoS attacks on the websites of anyone taking action against the whistleblower site; and free speech advocates have criticized actions against WikiLeaks.

Wre the WikiLeaks supporters who attacked the Web sites of various organizations perceived as acting against the whistleblower site really cyber-vigilantes, or are their actions really an online version of public protest?

Further, is cyber-vigilantism wrong? What about cyber-vigilantes like the hacker th3j35t3r, (The Jester), who take down Jihadi websites on their own?

A Litany of Online Ills

In the weeks following Wikileaks' release of Cablegate, MasterCard (NYSE: MA), Visa (NYSE: V) and Paypal, who refused to process contributions to WikiLeaks, all saw their sites hindered to some degree by online attackers.

The websites of PostFinance and even Senator Joe Lieberman, who spoke out against WikiLeaks over Cablegate, were also attacked. The attackers were the groups Anonymous and Operation Payback, and you can see a partial list of the attacks on Panda Labs' security blog.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of people worldwide have joined in the DDoS attacks on organizations that cracked down on WikiLeaks, and a Dutch teenager has been arrested for participation in the attacks.

The attackers used the Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC), an open source DDoS tool. This lets users start up or join a voluntary botnet to launch their attacks in concert.

LOIC lets users insert the address of a command and control server. The application will then automatically connect the users' computers to the C and C server, creating an ad hoc botnet, and launch synchronized attacks against a predetermined target. Some botnet operators were reportedly recruited by WikiLeaks supporters.

Anonymous and Operation Payback disclaimed any connections with each other, and if they're to be believed, they're just independent Web users who have a common cause -- targeting big business and government organizations perceived as trying to shut down free speech.

Senator Joe Lieberman's office did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

We Are What We Do

When a group of people get together to attack the website of a group they disagree with philosophically or politically, or to avenge the crushing of an ordinary person by a large organization, is that cybervigilantism or an attempt to protect free speech?

There is no standard definition for the terms "cyber-vigilantism" or "cyber-attacks" in state and federal laws addressing wrongful conduct on the Internet, Julie Machal-Fulks, a partner in law firm Scott and Scott Partners, told TechNewsWorld.

"How we may classify different kinds of cyber-vigilantes is less important than the specific actions taken by those groups or individuals," Machal-Fulks pointed out. For DDoS attacks and other similar activities, "there is no legally meaningful distinction between violation of a law applicable to online activity and violation of a law applicable to offline activity," she stated.

The claim that DDoS attacks are a form of political protest may not hold water.

There's a difference between legal and illegal political protest, whether the protests are conducted in the street or in cyberspace, George Pike, an assistant professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Law, told TechNewsWorld.

"A protest event that results in deliberate property damage or injury does not become legal simply because the intent was political," Pike explained.

Civil Disobedience or Incivility?

Could the spontaneous emergence of people worldwide who launched these DDoS attacks be considered civil disobedience instead?

"I am aware that civil disobedience is often claimed as a justification for some illegal activities, but the role or purpose of civil disobedience is generally oriented to changing public opinion about the law," Pike said. An act of civil disobedience, he contended, is "public and acknowledged by the actor, and not hidden and anonymous."

At the height of the attacks, the Electronic Frontier Foundation tweeted its condemnation of cyber-vigilantism.

"DDoS attacks are just that -- attacks," Chris Palmer, technology director at the EFF, told TechNewsWorld. "Like all attacks, they may have collateral damage, and may thus be counter-productive."

As the Internet becomes ever more densely connected and as people depend on it more and more, collateral damage "will become increasingly counter-productive and unsustainable," Palmer warned

Ours Are Good Guys, Theirs Are Bastards

The pro-WikiLeaks attackers didn't necessarily go scot-free -- Operation Payback's own website came under DDOS attack in what seemed to be retaliation for the group's actions over WikiLeaks.

The attackers were described in the Panda Labs blog as "a group of patriots attempting to protect the greater interests of the United States of America."

Indeed, some self-proclaimed cyber-vigilantes in America have launched cyberattacks against websites of people perceived as the enemy.

Perhaps one of the best known is a hacker calling himself "th3j35t3r," ("The Jester"). He specializes in taking down Muslim extremists' websites. Others include Bill Warner, a private investigator who shut down three extremist websites hosted by an ISP in Tampa, Fla., in 2008.

Where do we draw the line? Is it wrong for cybervigilantes to attack the websites of governments, government officials and large corporations? What about those of extremist religious groups?

WikiLeaks' site back with Swiss name after cyber attacks

Whistleblower website WikiLeaks came back online with a Swiss name on Friday around six hours after its wikileaks.org domain name was shut down because it was suffering massive cyber attacks.

"WikiLeaks moves to Switzerland," the group declared on Twitter, although an Internet trace of the new domain name suggested that the site itself is still hosted in Sweden and in France.

Web users accessing the wikileaks.ch address are directed to a page under the URL http://213.251.145.96/ -- which gives them access to the former site, including a massive trove of leaked US diplomatic traffic.

A separate search via the whois.net tool indicated that the wikileaks.ch site name is owned by the Swiss Pirates Party, which campaigns for data privacy and Internet freedoms. It was not immediately available to comment.

WikiLeaks has come under repeated cyber attacks since it began on Sunday publishing more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables, many of them "secret", that the website is thought to have obtained from a disaffected US soldier.

The cyber attacks have come on top of broadsides from governments around the world after diplomats were left red-faced by the often unflattering revelations in the massive leak of US State Department cables.

US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has described the leak as "an attack on the world" and on Thursday expressed her regret to Argentine President Cristina Kirchner and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari over their content.

The original wikileaks.org domain was taken offline at 0300 GMT Friday by its American domain name system provider, EveryDNS.net, following reports of massive attacks on the site.

"The interference at issue arises from the fact that wikileaks.org has become the target of multiple distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks," EveryDNS.net said in a statement.

Classic DDoS attacks occur when legions of "zombie" computers, normally machines infected with viruses, are commanded to simultaneously visit a website, overwhelming servers or knocking them offline completely.

The latest technological setback for the whistleblower site came after Amazon booted it from its computer servers on Wednesday following pressure from US politicians, prompting the site to move to a French server.

"Free speech the land of the free -- fine our dollars are now spent to employ people in Europe," WikiLeaks said. "If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the First Amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books."

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said last month that he was considering requesting asylum in Switzerland and basing the whistleblowing website in the fiercely neutral Alpine country.

"That is a real possibility," Assange said when asked whether he and the website might relocate, adding that Switzerland, and perhaps Iceland, were the only Western countries that his outfit feels safe in.

Assange told TSR television that Wikileaks was examining the possibility of creating a foundation that would allow it to operate out of Switzerland, and confirmed that he might apply for asylum.

The 39-year-old Australian is believed to be currently in Britain, and British police have been informed of his whereabouts as he is subject to an arrest warrant over rape allegations in Sweden, his lawyer said Thursday.

A WikiLeaks spokesman has said that Assange had to remain out of the public eye because he had faced assassination threats.

Swedish police said they would issue a new international warrant for Assange on suspicion of "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" to replace one that could not be applied because of a procedural error.

The announcement came after Sweden's supreme court refused to hear an appeal by Assange against the warrant which relates to events in Sweden in August. Assange denies the charges.

Verizon launching 4G wireless network

US telecom titan Verizon will launch a new generation wireless network on Sunday that delivers data as much as 10 times faster than 3G technology currently used by smartphones.

The "4G LTE" network debuting in 38 major metropolitan areas and at more than 60 airports will be aimed at business "road warriors" who want super speedy connections for laptop computers, according to Verizon.

"This next-generation network will provide speeds significantly faster than existing wireless networks," Verizon spokeswoman Debra Lewis told AFP.

"Downloading a video that takes 10 minutes now will take one minute on a 4G network."

Verizon worked with South Korean electronics firms LG and Pantech to design USB modems people can plug into laptop computers to connect to the LTE network.

The devices will be priced at 150 dollars each, with 50-dollar rebates available if people sign two-year service contracts with Verizon.

Data plan options will be to pay 50 dollars per month for a five-gigabyte allowance of data monthly or 80 dollars each month for 10 gigabytes of data, with users paying 10 dollars per gigabyte for overages.

The modems switch to 3G coverage in places where the LTE network isn't available, according to Verizon.

"Our 4G LTE launch gives customers access to the fastest and most advanced mobile network in America and immediately reaches more than one-third of all Americans right where they live," said Verizon chief executive Dan Mead.

"That's just the start. We will quickly expand 4G LTE, and by 2013 will reach the existing Verizon Wireless 3G coverage area."

Verizon expected smartphones synched to the 4G, short for "fourth generation," network to be available by the middle of next year.

US regulator backs 'do not track' list for Web users

US regulators backed the creation of a "do not track" option for the Internet that would limit the ability of advertisers to collect consumers' data.

In a preliminary staff report, the Federal Trade Commission said on Wednesday that while companies generally manage consumer information responsibly, there are exceptions.

"Self-regulation in privacy has not worked adequately," said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. "A legislative solution will surely be needed if industry doesn't step up to the plate."

Leibowitz said he supported creation of a mechanism that allows consumers to opt out of some tracking, adding that Congress would probably need to act, which may be difficult because of legislative gridlock next year.

Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said on Wednesday that he planned to introduce legislation that would require companies to secure data and inform consumers about what data is being collected.

"Consumers should be given a simple mechanism for opting out of the process," Kerry said in a statement.

Republicans in the House of Representatives, like Representative Joe Barton, have said, without offering details, they would focus on privacy issues.

Any legislation could be two years off, at minimum, said Amy Mushahwar, a privacy expert with Reed Smith, who predicted industry would strike a deal with the government.

If consumers gain more control over their data, the biggest losers could be companies serving third-party ads, said Mushahwar. "Those are the targets," she said.

Privacy expert Lisa Sotto at law firm Hunton & Williams said the industry needed to pay close attention to the report. "The report gives industry a strong sense of where there is likely to be future FTC enforcement."

The FTC staff report also urged that special care be taken with information about sensitive topics such as finances, health, children or an individual's location.

"Before any of this data is collected, used or shared, staff believes that companies should seek affirmative express consent," the report said.

The agency's report urged the development of ways to build privacy into the design of business practices by, for example, collecting only the data that is needed and disposing of it when it is no longer being used.

The agency also proposed that company privacy policies be simpler, clearer and shorter.

"Staff also proposes providing consumers with reasonable access to the data that companies maintain about them, particularly for companies that do not interact with consumers directly, such as data brokers," the report said.

"In addition, all entities must provide robust notice and obtain affirmative consent for material, retroactive changes to data policies."

The report comes as the FTC is under pressure to contain the growing strength and savvy of companies collecting Internet users' personal data and selling it to advertisers.

A recent report by a privacy group found, for example, that some websites that present themselves as a way for ill people to connect with other people with the same ailments were actually created by companies to collect and sell data on those people to market medicines to them.

A final version of the FTC report will be released next year after taking into account comments from interested parties.

Wikileaks DDoSser 'Jester' in phantom cop raid tomfoolery

The hacker suspected of involvement in the first denial of service attacks against Wikileaks has disowned blog posts that reported a raid on him by local police as the work of an imposter.

A patriot-hacker called The Jester, who previously used an XerXeS application layer attack tool he developed to assault jihadist sites, claimed to have done for Wikileaks in the run-up to its controversial publication of US diplomatic cables on Sunday. Jester claimed responsibility for the attack via an update to his @th3j35t3r account.

The use of a low bandwidth application layer attacks is consistent with data from DDoS mitigation firm Arbor Network, which reported a relatively modest attack of 2-4 Gbps. By contrast, a second assault launched on Tuesday reached 10 Gbps and bore the hallmarks of a botnet-powered packet flood, a more conventional attack strategy.

Around the same time, a blog post by @th3j3st3r (note the difference in spelling) reported on a supposed raid by local police and the confiscation of equipment. The blog itself appeared convincing enough in its appearance but the claims of a raid always looked dubious. The original Jester, who has been active since at least the start of the year, confirmed that @th3j3st3r is an imposter.

The whole "I am Sparticus" Jester, no I am, meme has quickly descended into Monty Python-like confusion.

Some of the relevant blog entries and Twitter updates have been deleted. However the sequence of events as they unfolded is clear from Twitter updates from F-Secure's Mikko H Hypponen (@mikkohypponen) here.

Veteran hacker, Oxblood Ruffin, of Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc) neatly observed that whoever Jester (th3j35t3r) might be " ...anyone who spells their nick with numbers in an effort to look 'leet' deserves to have their computer confiscated", a sentiment it's hard to disagree with.

Amazon stops hosting WikiLeaks website

Amazon.com Inc has stopped hosting WikiLeaks' website after an inquiry by the US Senate Homeland Security Committee amid anger about the release of classified US government documents on the site.

WikiLeaks turned to Amazon to keep its site available after hackers tried to flood it and thus prevent users from accessing the classified information posted. WikiLeaks said on Wednesday it was now being hosted by servers in Europe.

Staff for Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman had questioned Amazon about its relationship with WikiLeaks on Tuesday and called on other companies that provide web-hosting services to boycott WikiLeaks.

"I wish that Amazon had taken this action earlier based on WikiLeaks' previous publication of classified material," Lieberman, an independent, said in a statement. "I call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."

WikiLeaks has said since Sunday, when the first of its latest cache of US government documents were published by media outlets, that its site was the target of a "distributed denial of service" attack, which is a computer attack meant to overwhelm a website and render it unavailable.

A representative for Amazon, which is widely known for its Internet retail business but also offers smaller Internet-hosting services, did not respond to requests for comment.

WikiLeaks slammed Amazon for dropping it, saying via the social media network Twitter that if Amazon was "so uncomfortable with the First Amendment (of the US Constitution), they should get out of the business of selling books."

WikiLeaks obtained scores of internal US State Department communications, some of which were classified and included candid and embarrassing assessments of world leaders, and released them via media outlets and its own website.

Earlier this year, the website also released thousands of US classified documents related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, drawing condemnations that the information could endanger US forces and those helping the war efforts there.

The US Justice Department and Defense Department are investigating how the treasure trove of documents wound up in WikiLeaks hands. The prime suspect has been a former US Army intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning.

Even though Amazon has stopped providing the web-hosting services to WikiLeaks, Lieberman suggested that his problem with the company was not fully resolved.

"I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with Wikileaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information," Lieberman said.

Ryan Calo, a lecturer at Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society, said that under US law, Amazon would likely have been shielded from any possible prosecution by the government over the WikiLeaks document dump.

"It would set a dangerous precedent were companies like Amazon to take down things merely because the senator or another government entity started to ask question about them," Calo said.

Will shutting down WikiLeaks be an easy task?

Democratic countries are allegedly trying to shut down the whistleblower site WikiLeaks. But first, they have a legal tangle to solve.

“Julian Assange is an Australian citizen. And he's based his servers in Sweden. Sweden supports freedom of speech and is not beholden to American law,” said www.thebiggeek.com Technology Writer Gagandeep Singh Sapra.

Non-state hackers could, illegally, digitally attack the servers that contain the site's content. Or find weaknesses in the site's programming code. But when CNN-IBN tried to just find where the WikiLeaks servers are located, we got addresses from the US to Paris to Sweden.

“WikiLeaks is hosted on thousands of servers worldwide. If you disable one, another takes up the load. They are all ex-hackers themselves, so their code is very, very strong. Then again, they use mirroring sites, so if one website is shut down, it automatically points to another, still functioning location,” said Gagandeep.

China throttles all sensitive websites, at the physical node where internet cables enter their country. But proxy servers based in other countries can fool those censors. Sites like Gopher turn hot pages into innocent emails, letting even the Chinese read the WikiLeaks files.

But instead of shutting down WikiLeaks, shouldn't we try to save it? The Radia tapes, the Commonwealth Games, the Adarsh housing scam, think of the dirt an Indian version of WikiLeaks could unveil and the good that would do for all of us.

Bush Proves Surprisingly Tech-Savvy in Zuckerberg Chat

"By law, I was required to archive all my papers, which happened to be more than 20,000 boxes worth, and more than 170 million emails," Bush explained. "I didn't want any of those [emails] to be mine. The problem is if you were to read any of my emails today, you could read anything into them."

It would be natural to assume that George W. Bush and Mark Zuckerberg have nothing in common.

Bush, the 43rd president of the United States, is a Baby Boomer, while Zuckerberg, the founder and chief executive officer of Facebook, is a member of the millennial generation. Those facts alone, according to many contemporary sociologists, mean this pair should be participants in a culture war that's currently being waged everywhere from the workplace to the political arena.

Despite their outward differences, however, these two got along quite nicely when they sat down for a chat at Facebook headquarters on Monday afternoon.

For Bush, this was one of many stops on a cross-country tour to promote his new book, Decision Points, which gives his personal perspective on what he regards as some of the most important moments of his eight years as the country's chief executive.

Still, the hour-long conversation proved quite revealing in at least two ways: 1) It showed that the former president and the Facebook CEO -- both of whom will loom as prominent figures when the history of the early 20th Century is written -- are much more alike than outward appearances would indicate; and 2) It demonstrated the major impact that Facebook, and the underlying technology that spawned it, is having on the world at large.

Mutual Respect

First, let's examine the similarities between the two men. It's not likely that either will win any awards for public speaking in the near future. However, freed from the constraints of always having to appear presidential, Bush has developed a folksy speaking style, peppered with doses of self-deprecating humor, that enables him to connect with audiences quite well. He put that style to good use to break the conversational ice after a clearly nervous Zuckerberg ushered him on stage with a very brief introduction.

"Not exactly Jay Leno," Bush cracked, as he took his seat between Zuckerberg and Ted Ullyot, Facebook's general counsel, who then assumed the role of lead interviewer. That format allowed Zuckerberg to sit back, listen and interject questions as he saw fit, and that clearly helped turn what could have been an awkward 60 minutes into an interesting and insightful discourse.

As the hour unfolded, it became evident that Bush and Zuckerberg, even if this was the first time they met, have developed a mutual sense of respect.

The former president, always a champion of free markets, remarked how he admired Zuckerberg's accomplishments as an entrepreneur, and how he loves a country that allows such dreams to flourish. Later, Zuckerberg commented that he always admired how Bush made decisions based on strongly held beliefs and then stuck with those decisions, even when public sentiment seemed to be against him.

Understanding Technology

"We (Facebook) have gotten some criticism," Zuckerberg related. "Certainly not as much as comes with being president, but we have had some. And I've always admired how you handled those situations."

In regard to understanding technology, Zuckerberg's prowess in that area is evident in his creation of Facebook. But the former president demonstrated what many might consider a surprising level of clarity about the role technology is playing in society.

That was evident when Zuckerberg asked Bush why he had agreed to include a stop at Facebook headquarters on his book tour. "Because you have a lot of people paying attention to us, and I'm trying to sell books," the president responded.

The audience laughed at that comment, but it clearly highlighted the former president's understanding of how important social media has become to anyone trying to communicate with the masses.

Bush then pointed out that he has more than 600,000 friends on his personal Facebook page, which he uses to keep in touch with people who worked in his administration, "and folks who are interested in what [former First Lady Laura Bush] and I are doing."

Personal Technology Choices

When it comes to his personal use of technology, Bush said he frequently plugged into an iPod while riding his mountain bike when he occupied the White House. As a private citizen, however, he rides unplugged, preferring the sounds of nature to electronic stimulation.

In the early days of his post-presidential life, Bush said he became a BlackBerry person, but recently he has switched to an iPad. In a statement that revealed just how much he understands the true impact of technology, Bush said he made a conscious decision not to use email while he was president.

"My administration was the first one to really use email," he remarked, adding that requirements of the Freedom of Information Act prompted him to avoid being part of the email loop.

"By law, I was required to archive all my papers, which happened to be more than 20,000 boxes worth, and more than 170 million emails," Bush explained. "I didn't want any of those [emails] to be mine. The problem is if you were to read any of my emails today, you could read anything into them."

With that one statement, this former president, whom many people assumed would have no clue about how to use technology, showed more understanding of its impact than a large portion of the 500 million who cavalierly use Facebook every day.

Supreme Court rejects Tiffany appeal of eBay ruling

The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by luxury retailer Tiffany of a ruling that eBay cannot be held liable for trademark infringement for counterfeit items sold through its site.

Tiffany filed suit against eBay in 2004 claiming the US online auction giant should be liable for trademark infringement for the sale of counterfeit Tiffany silver jewelry on its website.

US District Court Judge Richard Sullivan ruled in July 2008 that the San Jose, California-based eBay was not liable.

After that ruling was upheld by an appeals court, Tiffany appealed to the Supreme Court but the court declined -- without comment -- to hear the case on Monday.

In his ruling, Judge Sullivan noted that eBay, after being informed by Tiffany of counterfeit items being sold on the website, "immediately removed those listings."

The company refused, however, to monitor and "preemptively remove listings of Tiffany jewelry before the listings became public," the judge said.

"The law does not impose liability for contributory trademark infringement on eBay for its refusal to take such preemptive steps," he said.

"The result of the application of this legal standard is that Tiffany must ultimately bear the burden of protecting its trademark," Sullivan said.

The case is similar to others in the United States and elsewhere on the liability of online sellers for copyright infringement.

In France, a court ordered eBay in 2008 to pay damages to Louis Vuitton for selling fake luxury goods.

US targets websites selling counterfeit goods

On one of the year's busiest Internet shopping days, US federal law enforcement announced a crackdown that blocked 82 domain names of far-flung commercial websites to keep them from peddling counterfeit merchandise and illegal copies of music and software.

Nearly 100 million people shop on "Cyber Monday," a day when consumers return to work from the long Thanksgiving weekend. Many buy items online.

Counterfeiters are prowling the back alleys of the Internet, waiting to unload shoddy presents unlikely to bring any holiday cheer, John Morton, head of immigration and customs enforcement at the US Homeland Security Department, told a news conference.

Attorney General Eric Holder said federal law enforcement agents got court orders allowing them to seize the domain names after making undercover purchases from online retailers and confirming that the items sold were counterfeit or infringed on copyrights.

The move was applauded by the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America.

Anyone attempting to access one of the websites will find a banner saying that the domain name has been seized by federal authorities.

The counterfeit goods include sports equipment, shoes, handbags, athletic apparel and sunglasses. The copyright infringement covers copies of DVDs, music and software.

Most of the counterfeit goods are produced and shipped from China.

On a trip to Hong Kong and to Beijing last month, Holder told law enforcement counterparts from China and around the world to do more to fight these crimes.

Congress is considering giving law enforcement more tools to crack down on copyright infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods online, but the proposed legislation has run into some opposition.

Earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would allow the Justice Department to obtain court orders identifying sites dedicated to "infringing activity" and require companies that register Internet domain names to suspend those accounts. And to reach Web sites registered outside the US, the bill also would require Internet service providers to block their users from accessing those sites and prohibit payment processors and online advertising networks from doing business with them.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has strong backing from Hollywood, the nation's big record labels and other industries that depend on strong intellectual property protections. But some in the technology industry say it could result in Internet censorship by blocking access to Web sites.

Dell switching off BlackBerry, onto own smartphone

Dell Inc will shift thousands of its employees off Research in Motion Ltd's BlackBerry and over to Dell's smartphones, the company said on Thursday.

The money-saving switch affects the roughly 25,000 Dell employees who carry a company-issued BlackBerry. Dell employs around 100,000 people worldwide.

Dell is also launching an effort to convince its business customers to switch to the company's smartphone.

News of the company's plans was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, and confirmed by Dell spokesman David Frink.

Frink said the switch will begin soon, but said it will take some time to complete.

RIM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dell's BlackBerry users will be shifted over to use the new Dell Venue Pro, which runs on Microsoft's new Windows Phone 7 software and operates on the network of T-Mobile USA, the US arm of Deutsche Telekom AG.

Dell's decision to move its employees off BlackBerry may come as little surprise, given its aspirations in the mobile device market. The company has frequently talked about using handheld devices as a gateway to sell and promote a broader suite of services.

Dell formally entered the smartphone market only late last year, and launched its first device in the US, the Aero, earlier this year. The Aero runs on Google's Android software, as does Dell's new 5-inch tablet, the Streak.

RIM has long been the dominant player in the corporate smartphone market, but has seen its market share erode as companies such as Apple make gains.

In the third quarter, RIM's global smartphone market share slipped more than 4 percentage points from a year-ago, according to industry tracker IDC